Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK Minutes - 2021-03-02HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES MARCH 2, 2021CITY OF KITCHENER The Heritage Kitchener Committee metelectronicallythis date, commencing at 4:01p.m. Present:S. Hossack-Chair Councillors D. Chapman, J. Gazzola, C. Michaud,and D. Vongphakdy, J. Haalboom, J. Baker, M. Asling, M. Abid, P. Ciuciuraand R. Schwarz. Staff:M. Drake, Senior Heritage & Project Planner V. Grohn, Heritage Planner D. Saunderson, Committee Administrator 1.DSD-21-036-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2021-IV-007 -23 ROLAND STREET -REMOVAL AND RECONSTRUCTION OF REAR PORCH AND BALCONY The Committee considered DevelopmentServices Department report DSD-21-036, dated February 16, 2021recommending approval of Heritage Permit Application (HPA) HPA-2021-IV- 007to permit the removal and reconstruction of the rear porch and balcony on the property municipally addressed as 23 Roland Street located within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District(VPAHCD), and is also designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. V.Grohn presented the Report, advising staff are recommending approval of the HPA, subject to one condition. R. Schwarz and M. Abid entered the meeting at this time. Meg Crawford was in attendance in support of HPA-2021-IV-007 and the staff recommendation. In response to questions, M. Crawford advised the original porch was likely constructedfrom pine butcould not confirm because it is painted. The following motion was voted on and Carried unanimously. On motion byCouncillorD.Chapman- it was resolved: “That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2021-IV-007 be approved, as outlined in Development Services Department report DSD- 21-036,to permit the removal and reconstruction of the rear porch and balcony on the property municipally addressed as 23 Roland Street, in accordance with the plans and supplementary information submitted with the application and subject to the following condition: i.That the final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance provided by Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.” 2.DSD-21-037-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2021-IV-008 -137-147 KING STREET EAST -GROUND FLOOR FAÇADE ALTERATIONS The Committee considered DevelopmentServices Department report DSD-21-037, dated February 16, 2021recommendingapproval of Heritage Permit Application (HPA) HPA-2021-IV- 008 to permit ground floor façade alterations of the building at the property municipally addressed as 137-147 King Street East.The property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. V.Grohn presented the Report, advising staff are recommending approval of the HPA, subject to one condition. Dave Galbraithand Joe Somfay,IBI Group were in attendance in support of HPA-2021-IV-008 and the recommendation as outlined in thestaffReport. In response to questions, J. Somfay advised the renovationisintended to maximize the commercial area on the ground floor and mimicthe windowsthat currently exist on the upper levels of the building. J. Somfay further advised the interior of thebuilding has been demolished to the structural features of the dwelling, noting the boarding currently in place is intended to prevent vandalism. HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES MARCH 2, 2021-11-CITY OF KITCHENER 2.DSD-21-037-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2021-IV-008 -137-147 KING STREET EAST -GROUND FLOOR FAÇADE ALTERATIONS (CONT’D) Councillor D. Chapman questionedwhether the angled windowswere of heritage significance and how they contributed to the Downtown Core. V.Grohn advised the composition of the building is a mix of architectural styles, noting they do contribute aesthetics of the building, she was unable to confirm this date how significant the angled windows were to the overall architecture of the building, stating the designating By-law does not go into significant detail to the overalllook of that feature. P. Ciuciuraquestioned with the conversionof the building to a residential use and likely the need to update the heating system to address the new use, will building penetrations be required on the exterior of the building specifically the front façade to accommodate new mechanical items. J. Somfay stated there are not impacts to the front façade for new mechanical requirements, noting any impacts to the exterior of the structure will be done on the sides and at the rear of the dwelling. The following motion was voted on and Carried unanimously. On motion by D. Vongphakdy - it was resolved: “That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-IV-008 be approved, as outlined in Development Services Department report DSD-21-037, to permit ground floor façade alterations, in accordance with the plans and supplementary information submitted with the application and subject to the following condition: i.That final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance be provided by Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.” 3.DSD-21-038-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2021-V-009 -25 MARGARET AVENUE -CONSTRUCTION OF CARPORT ADDITION The Committee considered DevelopmentServices Department report DSD-21-038, dated February 16, 2021recommendingapproval of Heritage Permit Application (HPA) HPA-2021-V- 009 to permit the construction of a carport addition to the dwellingmunicipally addressed as 25 Margaret Avenue located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD)and identified as a Group ‘C’ property. V.Grohn presented the Report, advising staff are recommending approval of the HPA, subject to one condition. Scott Hendersonand Michelle Kienitz Hendersonwere in attendance in support of HPA-2021- V-009and the recommendation as outlined in Report DSD-21-038. S. Henderson provided a brief overview of the application, noting they were not intending toconstruct the carport this summer, the intention was to install the required footings for the carport at the same time that the fence and thedriveway are being installed, noting it is was likely the carport would be constructed in 2022. S. Henderson further advised with the adjacent apartment building they are hoping the proposed fence and carport would adequately define the parking for their property. In response to questions. V. Grohn noted therecommendedapproval specificallystates that the HPA should be approvedas per the plans submitted with the application,indicatedany changes to the approved planswould require the property owner to apply for a further HPA. The following motion was voted on and Carried unanimously. On motion by Councillor C. Michaud- it was resolved: HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES MARCH 2, 2021-12-CITY OF KITCHENER 3.DSD-21-038-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2021-V-009 -25 MARGARET AVENUE -CONSTRUCTION OF CARPORT ADDITION (CONT’D) “That pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-V-009 be approved, as outlined in Development Services Department report DSD-21-038, to permit the construction of a carport addition to the dwelling municipally addressed as 25 Margaret Avenue, in accordance with the plans and supplementary information submitted with the application and subject to the following condition: i.That final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance provided by Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.” 4.DSD-21-039-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2021-V-010 -8 DEVON STREET -ALTERATION AND CONVERSION OF A SINGLE DETACHED DWELLING INTO A DUPLEX The Committee considered Development Services Department report DSD-21-039, dated February 16, 2021 recommending approval of Heritage Permit Application (HPA) HPA-2021-V- 010 to permit the alteration and conversion of a single detached dwelling located on the property municipally addressed as 8 Devon Street into a duplex. The subject property is located within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District (VPAHCD). V.Grohn presented the Report, advisingthe Committee previously considered the proposed development at 8 Devon Street in August, September and November 2019, stating the Committee previously approved Heritage Permit Application HPA-2019-V-029. V. Grohn noted since that time the applicant has made some changes to the proposed design to raise the roofline to accommodate a finished attic space and incorporate an additional verandah on the third floor. V. Grohn further advised staff are recommending approval of the HPA, subject to one condition. Dan Jackson was in attendance in support of the subject HPA and staff recommendation.In response to questions, D. Jackson advised the property to the right is equal in height to the roofline that is now being proposed for the subject property, noting with the grade change from the rear of the property, the height at the back of the dwelling is approximately 8.5m from grade, whereas the front of the property will be 11m in height from grade. M. Asling stated he was in support of the HPA and the staff recommendation, noting he was in support of increasing housing supply wherever possible, stating he was in support of the applicants proposal to duplex the property, noting staff have expressed no objection on heritage grounds. Questions were raised regarding the removal of bricks from the rear of the property and whether there were sufficientmaterials to complete the front façade of the building with the increased height. D. Jackson stated there were more bricks in the rear of the building than initially anticipated, noting he was able to complete the front façadeandportions of the side of the buildingthat were previously sided. The following motion was voted on and Carried unanimously. On motion by Councillor D. Chapman- it was resolved: “That pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-V-010 be approved, as outlined in Development Services Department report DSD-21-039, to permit the alteration and conversion of a single detached dwelling located on the property municipally addressed as 8 Devon Street into a duplex, in accordance with the plans and supplementary information submitted with the application and subject to the following condition: i.That the final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance be provided by Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.” HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES MARCH 2, 2021-13-CITY OF KITCHENER 5.DSD-21-041-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2021-IV-006 -300 JOSEPH SCHOERG CRESCENT -CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHEDGARAGE The Committee considered Development Services Department report DSD-21-041, dated February 12, 2021 recommending approval of Heritage Permit Application (HPA) HPA-2021-IV- 006to permit the construction of a detached garage on the property municipally addressedas 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, be refused.The property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and subject to a Heritage Conservation Easement Agreement(HCA).M. Drakepresented the Report, advising staff when making a recommendation specifically review the merits of an application through a heritage perspective. M. Drake stated after reviewing the Heritage Designation By-law and Heritage Conservation Agreement staff have made a recommendation to refuse HPA-2021-IV-006. David Waverman, Stantec and Beth and Steve Hanson were in attendance in support of the HPA and in opposition to the recommendation outlined inthe staff reportto refuse the construction of the garage. B. Hanson presented a video that demonstrated the views from the streetscape along the frontage of the subject property. B. Hanson stated the proposed garagehaving a width of22” will have minimal impact on the views on the overall Cultural Heritage Landscape(CHL).B. Hanson stated the adjacent property that is subject to similarheritage protections, save and except for aHCA,were permitted to construct a two-carattached garage, that would have similar impacts to the vistas as the garage proposedin the subject HPA. B. Hanson further advised they are good stewards of heritage conservation and agreed to the HCAwith the City but have concerns that extra restrictionsare being imposed on them due tothe HCA. B. Hanson stated the previous owner of the property also sought a garage and Planning staff previously recommended refusal. In consultation with Planning staff, B. Hanson stated the staff report does have an alternative recommendation that would permit the constructionof the garage subject to 4 conditions, 3 of which were proposed by themselves. B. Hanson further advised the proposed garage in her opinion is inconsequential to the CHL butis consequential to the enjoyment of their property. D.Waverman addressed the Committee in support of the HPA. D. Waverman stated he is a culture heritage landscape specialist, noting he had reviewed staff’sprevious recommendations when thepreviousproperty owner had proposed the construction of a garage, noting he acknowledgedand understood the refusals in previous instances. D. Waverman provided a rendering of the proposed garage, as well as an overview of the language in the designation By- law and Heritage Conservation Agreement, stating static vantage points in reality generally do not exist.D. Waverman further advised someone would have toarrive at the vantage pointand wouldtherefore be always passing in motion, notingthe only static points of theactual homestead are from thethree residences across thestreet who have allsubmittedwrittenletters of support for theHPA. D. Waverman further advised the adjacent property, also designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Actwas permitted to construct a garagealong thesame ridge of land. Finally, D. Wavermanindicated currentlyparked vehiclesobstruct the viewsfrom the location of the proposed garage, statingthe garage amounts to 0.6% of lot coverage, which would equala2% intervention to view corridor of CHL. D. Waverman further advisedthe homeowner has respectfully maintained and enhanced theheritage attributes of the property and is interested in working with theHeritage Committee so that the proposed garage is sympathetic andcomplimentary to the heritage character of the site. In response to questions, B. Hanson stated she was in support of the alternative recommendation as outlined in the report, indicating she proposed three of the conditions that are included within that recommendation. B. Hanson further advised she believes the conditions area compromise thatwouldallow the garage to be constructed and ensure it was also sympathetic to the existing drive-shed. B. Hanson further advised they are good stewards of heritage and have beenacknowledgedfor their efforts by winning heritage awards for their efforts. B. Hanson stated ultimately,shewould like a decision both they and the City can be happy with. In response to further questions, B. Hanson stated it was her belief that her property was olderthan the ShirkHomestead, noting it was her understandingthat the ShirkHomestead was constructed for a daughter of the family. HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES MARCH 2, 2021-14-CITY OF KITCHENER 5.DSD-21-041-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2021-IV-006 -300 JOSEPH SCHOERG CRESCENT -CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHEDGARAGE (CONT’D) Questions were raised regarding the parking on the subject property. B. Hanson stated currently they are able to accommodate 6 cars on-site. With the existing encroachment agreement,there are threeparking spaces adjacent to the drive shed and there are three spaces in front of the drive-shed. B. Hanson stated they have opted not to use the three parking spaces in front of the drive-shed following its conversion to living space. B. Hanson stated if the Committee was willing to recommend approval of the garage, as a condition of the approval,she stated she would be willing to remove the parking spaces in front of the drive-shed and install a garden to differentiate between the two buildings. In response to further questions, B. Hanson stated the Heritage Conservation Agreement(HCA) has been in place since 2004, noting with the easement,it provides a property tax reduction of approximately $1500 annually. B. Hansonindicatedthe previous property owner agreed to the HCA, stating he may not have agreed to it had he been aware it could have possibly increased the restrictions to the property,noting he previously sought approval to build a similar garage in the proposed location and was denied. Councillor D. Chapman questioned whether the homes on the adjacent side of the street were subject to restrictions due to the Cultural Heritage Landscapewhen they were constructed. M. Drake stated opportunities for the Pioneer Tower West Heritage Conservation DistrictPlan were explored with a sub-committee of staff and property owners. Ultimately, in lieu of anHCD, the Historic Pioneer Tower West Community Heritage Design Guidelines (2003)were established. M. Drake stated when the homes on the adjacentside of the street were constructed,they were reviewed for architectural features, designs and materialsin relation to those guidelines. Councillor Chapman stated in her opinion, there is significant open space to see the heritage views, noting sympathy for the property owner. In response to questions regarding distinguishing between the new and old, M. Drake indicated in the case of heritage development, you want to be mindful to not present a false sense of history. Where development is proposed,it is encouraged to be complimentary rather than the same. Where people are viewing the property, you would like to be able to distinguish moments of time on the site. J. Baker questioned whether staff had considered a compromise that would still permit the construction of a garage that did not confuse people into believing it was original to the property. M. Drake stated staff have worked with the property owners on a number of projects in the past, noting they are good heritage stewards. M. Drake commented the challenge with the property has to do with the site specifically and the language outlined in the designation By-law and Conservation Agreement, both documents having the same language, which identify the views as having heritage significance. M. Drake indicated the adjacent property whichwaspermitted to construct a garage doesnotincludelanguage withinits designation By-lawto the viewsas the vegetation on the property at the time of designation rendered the views insignificant.M. Drake stated in the past heritage planning staff have reviewed this property and other possible locationswhere a garage could be constructed and for a number of reasons the proposed location is the only viableoption. M. Drake further advised recommending refusal of this HPA was a very difficult decision, stating ultimately her role at the City is to review every HPA through a heritage lens, which is what has resulted in the refusal. P. Ciuciura stated in this instance the open space on the subject property is what has been designated as having heritage significance and it is the open space subsequentlyadds to the heritagevalue ofthe overall collective of the property. P. Ciuciuracommented he was in support of the staff recommendation to refuse the HPA, noting the value of the empty space in his opinion as critical to the culture heritage aspect of the property. P. Ciuciuraindicated putting a building between the buildings would diminishthe designation. P. Ciuciurafurther advised the adjacent property and the construction of a garage should not set a precedence to permit the garage in this instance. A motion was brought forward by Councillor J. Gazzola to approveHeritage Permit Application HPA-2021-IV-006 to permit the construction of a detached garage on the property municipally addressed as 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent. HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES MARCH 2, 2021-15-CITY OF KITCHENER 5.DSD-21-041-HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION HPA-2021-IV-006 -300 JOSEPH SCHOERG CRESCENT -CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHEDGARAGE (CONT’D) It was noted any recommendation arising from this matter would be considered at Council on March 22, 2021. The following motion was than voted on and Carried on a recorded vote,with Councillors J. Gazzola, D. Chapman, C. Michaud and M. Asling, R. Schwarz, S. Hossak and M. Abidvoting in favour; and, J. Baker, P. Ciuciura,D.Vongphakdyand J.Haalboomvoting in opposition. On motion by Councillor J. Gazzola- it was resolved: “That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-IV-006 to permit the construction of a detached garage on the property municipally addressed as 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, outlined in Development Services Department report DSD-21-041, be approved.” 6.HERITAGE OPINION LETTER -SCOPED HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) -50 BROOKSIDE CRESCENT -SEVERANCE PROPOSAL & COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION FOR CONSENT The Committee considered a memorandum dated February 16, 2021 regarding Heritage Opinion Letter, dated October 26, 2020 in relation toDraft Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), dated March 14, 2018for the property municipally addressed as 50 Brookside Crescent. M. Drakeprovided opening remarks,statingthe property was previously subject to aconsent application, where the easterly portion of the property was severed to allow the construction of a new dwelling and the1855 farmhouse was maintained onthe retained parcel. M. Drake stated the property owner has subsequentlysubmitted a new consent application to sever the westerly portion of the property. She stated staff are just requesting feedback from the Committee on the Heritage Opinion Letterand the recommendation contained within. Owen Scott and Michael Krause were in attendance in support of theheritage opinion letter and the recommendations contained within the Draft Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), dated March 14, 2018. O. Scott provided an overviewthe subject property,includingthe recommendations contained within the Draft HIA, as well as the opinion related to the recommendations in relation to the current consent application, which has been outlined in the Heritage Opinion Letterdated October 26, 2020.O. Scottindicatedsince the previous consent application the 1855 stone farmhouse has since been designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. O. Scott stated he reviewed the history surrounding the stone garage, as well as the storage building that currently exist in the westerly yard, indicating they are not original to the stone farmhouse.O. Scott further advised the creation of a semi-detached lot as described and pictured in the opinionletter would not create a negative impact to the heritage resource if the original recommendations of the March 2018 HIA wereadhered to. J. Haalboom questioned whether the property owner would be required to submit building elevation drawings for review design and material review to ensure their compatibility with the heritage dwelling, stating in her opinion, that shouldnote any design proposed should be reviewed for compatibilityin relation to the heritage dwelling located at 50 Brookside Crescent. 7.STATUS UPDATES -HERITAGE BEST PRACTICES UPDATE AND 2021PRIORITIES -HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOLLOW-UPS V. Grohn stated Information Item has been included in the Committee’s agenda this date for the Committee’sreview. V. Grohn stated the Committee is required to consider and approve a workplan for the current term of the Committee, noting the agenda this date and likely for the April meeting would not permit for a fulsome discussion on the workplan. V. Grohnindicatedthe workplanis anticipated to bebroughtforward for discussion at the Committee’s May meeting. HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES MARCH 2, 2021-16-CITY OF KITCHENER 7.STATUS UPDATES -HERITAGE BEST PRACTICES UPDATE AND 2021 PRIORITIES -HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOLLOW-UPS (CONT’D) J. Haalboom noted Jane’s Walk which was identified on the previous Committee work term is typically scheduled the first week in May, noting if the Committee choosesto engage in that event,then consideration would likely need to take place imminently. 8.ADJOURNMENT On motion,this meeting adjourned at 6:40p.m. D. Saunderson Committee Administrator